WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
25 July 2022  
(22-5591) Page: 1/23 
  Original: English  
 
  
TURKEY – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION,  
IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS  
ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE DSU 
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATORS  
Addendum  
This Addendum  contains Annexes A to D to the Award of the Arbitrators  to be found in document  
WT/DS5 83/ARB25. 
 
 
_______________  
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 2 - 
   
LIST OF ANNEXES  
ANNEX A  
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR THE ARBITRATION  
Contents  Page  
Annex  A-1 Agreed Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, notified by 
the parties to the Dispute Settlement Body on 22  March 2022 
(WT/DS583/10)  4 
Annex A -2 Working Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, adopted  by 
the Arbitrators  on 10 May 2022  8 
ANNEX B  
NOTICE OF RECOURSE TO ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE DSU  
Contents  Page  
Annex  B-1 Türkiye 's notice of recourse to arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU  14 
ANNEX C  
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES  
Contents  Page  
Annex  C-1 Executive summary of Türkiye 's written submission  17 
Annex  C-2 Executive summary of the European Union's written submission  19 
ANNEX D  
ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES  
Contents  Page  
Annex  D-1 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's third party's written 
submission  22 
Annex  D-2 Executive summary of Switzerland's third party's written submission  23 
 
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 3 - 
  ANNEX  A 
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR THE ARBITRATION  
Contents  Page  
Annex  A-1 Agreed Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, notified by 
the parties to the Dispute Settlement Body on 22  March 2022 
(WT/DS583/10)  4 
Annex A -2 Working Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, adopted by 
the Arbit rators on 10 May 2022  8 
 
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 4 - 
  ANNEX  A-1 
AGREED PROCEDURES FOR ARBITRATION  UNDER ARTICLE  25 OF THE DSU* 
Notified by the parties to the Dispute Settlement Body on 22 March 2022  
1. Taking into account that the Appellate  Body is not presently able to hear an appeal1 in this 
dispute the European Union and Turkey  (hereafter the "parties") mutually agree pursuant to  
Article  25.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes 
(DSU) to enter into arbitration under Article  25 of the DSU to decide any appeal from any final panel 
report2 as issued to the parties in dispute DS583. Any pa rty to the dispute may initiate arbitration 
in accordance with these agreed procedures.  
2. The arbitration may only be initiated if the Appellate  Body is not able to hear an appeal in this 
dispute under Article  16.4 and 17 of the DSU. For the purposes of the se agreed procedures, such 
situation is deemed to arise where, on the date of issuance of the final panel report to the parties, 
there are fewer than three Appellate  Body members.  
For greater certainty, if the Appellate  Body is able to hear appeals at the date on which the final 
panel report is issued to the parties, a party may not initiate an arbitration, and the parties shall be 
free to consider an appeal under Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU.  
 
3. In order to facilitate the proper administration of arbi tration under these agreed procedures, 
the parties hereby jointly request the panel to notify the parties of the anticipated date of circulation 
of the final panel report within the meaning of Article  16 of the DSU, no later than 45 days in advance 
of that  date.  
The parties note that, with regard to the present panel proceedings, the panel has already notified 
the parties of the anticipated date of circulation of the final report within the meaning of Article  16 
of the DSU.  
4. Following the issuance of the fi nal panel report to the parties, but no later than 10 days prior 
to the anticipated date of circulation of the final panel report to the rest of the Membership, any 
party may request that the panel suspend the panel proceedings with a view to initiating th e 
arbitration under these agreed procedures. Such request by any party is deemed to constitute a 
joint request by the parties for suspension of the panel proceedings for 12 months pursuant to 
Article  12.12 of the DSU.  
The parties note that the present pan el proceedings were already suspended on 20 December 2021 
(until 21 January 2022), which suspension was extended on 20 January 2022 (until 11 February 
2022), on 9 February 2022 (until 25 February 2022) and on 23 February 2022 (until 25 March 2022). 
The not ification of the present agreement to the panel shall be deemed to constitute a joint request 
by the parties for further indefinite suspension pursuant to Article  12.12 of the DSU.  
The parties hereby jointly request the panel to provide for the following, before the suspension takes 
effect:  
 
i. the immediate transmission of the final panel report, on a provisional basis, to the 
arbitrators and the lifting of confidentiality for that sole purpose;  
 
* WT/DS583/10.  
1 The parties recall that, in concluding this agreement, they aim to maintain their rights and obligations 
under the WTO  dispute settlement system, including its mandatory and binding character and two levels of 
adjudication through an independent and impartial review of panel reports, until such time as the 
Appellate  Body may again be able to hear appeals pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU.  
2 For greater certainty, this includes any final panel report issued in compliance proceedings pursuant to 
Article  21.5 of the DSU.  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 5 - 
  ii. the transmission of the panel record to the arbitrators upon the  filing of the Notice of 
Appeal : Rule 25 of the Working Procedures for Appellate  Review shall apply mutatis 
mutandis;  
iii. the lifting of confidentiality with respect of the final panel report under the Working 
Procedures of the panel and the transmission of t he final panel report, duly adjusted 
for translation, in the working languages of the WTO to the parties, to the third parties 
and to the arbitrators.3 
The parties note that the present panel proceedings are already suspended but, by way of derogation 
therefrom, nevertheless affirm the limited joint requests in the preceding paragraph, to be executed, 
to the extent relevant, with effect from the date of the filing of a Notice of Appeal, and as soon as 
the arbitrators are appointed.  
 
Except as  provided in paragraphs  6 and 18, the parties shall not request the panel to resume the 
panel proceedings.  
 
5. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing of a Notice of Appeal with the WTO  Secretariat no 
later than 30 days after the suspension of the panel proceedings referred to in paragraph  4 has 
taken effect. The Notice of Appeal shall include the final panel report in the working languages of 
the WTO. The Notice of Appeal shall be simultaneously notified to the other party or parties and to 
the third par ties in the panel proceedings. Rules 20 -23 of the Working Procedures for 
Appellate  Review shall apply mutatis mutandis.  
The parties agree that, because the present panel proceedings have already been suspended, the 
time limit for the filing of a Notice of  Appeal shall be no later than 30 days from the date on which 
this agreement is notified to the DSB.  
6. Subject to paragraph  2, where the arbitration has not been initiated under these agreed 
procedures, the parties shall be deemed to have agreed not to appe al the panel report pursuant to 
Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, with a view to its adoption by the DSB. If the panel proceedings 
have been suspended in accordance with paragraph  4, but no Notice of Appeal has been filed in 
accordance with paragraph  5, the  parties hereby jointly request the panel to resume the panel 
proceedings.  
7. The arbitrators shall be three persons randomly selected, in the physical presence of 
representatives of the parties, from a combined list of former Appellate  Body Members and appe al 
arbitrators.4 The random selection will be conducted at the same time as the random selection in 
DS595 European Union  – Safeguard Measures on Certain Steel Products , so as to ensure that one 
randomly selected appeal is heard by two former Appellate  Body Members and one MPIA appeal 
arbitrator whilst the appeal in the other dispute is heard by one former Appellate  Body Member and 
two MPIA appeal arbitrators. If there is only one appeal it will be heard by one former Appellate  Body 
Member, one MPIA appeal arbitrator, and the third person shall be drawn at random from the 
remaining persons on the combined list. The random selection shall be made immediately after the 
filing of any notice of appeal and the arbitrators informed immediately. The parties and thi rd parties 
will be informed of the results of the selection immediately, once any notice of cross -appeal has 
been filed. The arbitrators shall elect a Chairperson. Rule 3(2) of the Working Procedure for 
Appellate  Review shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to th e decision -making by the arbitrators. In the 
event of compliance appeal arbitration proceedings the arbitrators shall be the same persons that 
adjudicated the previous appeal arbitration proceedings, if available. If a person is not available or 
becomes un available in the original or any compliance proceedings, a replacement shall be drawn 
at random from the combined list of persons who are available. If no persons are available on the 
combined list, the parties shall agree on a reasonable method for appoin ting a replacement, taking 
into account the approach used in the original proceedings. If no agreement can be reached within 
one month, either party may request the Director -General to appoint a replacement, taking into 
account the approach used in the ori ginal proceedings.  
 
3 The parties confirm that it is not their intention that the panel report be circulated within the meani ng 
of Article  16 of the DSU.  
4 JOB/DSB/1/Add.12/Suppl.5, 3 August 2020 . WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 6 - 
  8. In order to promote consistency and coherence in decision making in this dispute and in 
dispute DS595 European Union  – Safeguard Measures on Certain Steel Products , the arbitrators may, 
upon consultation of the parties, inform the arbitr ators in the other dispute of the issues susceptible 
to be adjudicated, who may comment thereon, without prejudice to the exclusive responsibility and 
freedom of the arbitrators in this dispute with respect to such decisions and their quality, and without 
prejudice to their independence and impartiality. Where necessary, the arbitrators in both appeals 
may receive any document relating to the other appeal.  
9. An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered by the panel report and legal interpretations 
developed by the panel. The arbitrators may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and 
conclusions of the panel. Where applicable, the arbitration award shall include recommendations, as 
envisaged in Article  19 of the DSU. The findings of the panel whic h have not been appealed shall be 
deemed to form an integral part of the arbitration award together with the arbitrators' own findings.  
10. The arbitrators shall only address those issues that are necessary for the resolution of the 
dispute. They shall address  only those issues that have been raised by the parties, without prejudice 
to their obligation to rule on jurisdictional issues.  
11. Unless otherwise provided for in these agreed procedures, the arbitration shall be governed, 
mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of the DSU and other rules and procedures applicable to 
Appellate  Review. This includes in particular the Working Procedures fo r Appellate  Review and the 
timetable for appeals provided for therein as well as the Rules of Conduct. The arbitrators may adapt 
the Working Procedures for Appellate  Review and the timetable for appeals provided for therein, 
where justified under Rule 16 o f the Working Procedures for Appellate  Review, after consulting the 
parties.  
12. The parties request the arbitrators to issue the award within 90 days following the filing of the 
Notice of Appeal. To that end, the arbitrators may take appropriate organizationa l measures to 
streamline the proceedings, without prejudice to the procedural rights and obligations of the parties 
and due process. Such measures may include decisions on page limits, time limits and deadlines as 
well as on the length and number of hearin gs required.  
13. If necessary in order to issue the award within the 90 day time -period, the arbitrators may 
also propose substantive measures to the parties, such as an exclusion of claims based on the 
alleged lack of an objective assessment of the facts pur suant to Article  11 of the DSU.5 
14. On a proposal from the arbitrators, the parties may agree to extend the 90 day time -period 
for the issuance of the award.  
15. The parties agree to abide by the arbitration award, which shall be final. Pursuant to 
Article  25.3 of the DSU, the award shall be notified to, but not adopted by, the DSB and to the 
Council or Committee of any relevant agreement.  
16. Only parties to the dispute, not third parties, may initiate the arbitration. Third parties which 
have notified the DSB of a substantial interest in the matter before the panel pursuant to Article  10.2 
of the DSU may make written submissions to, and shall be given an opportunity to be heard by, the 
arbitrators. Rule 24 of the Working Procedures for Appellate  Review shall apply  mutatis mutandis.  
17. Pursuant to Article  25.4 of the DSU, Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU shall apply mutatis mutandis 
to the arbitration award issued in this dispute.  
18. At any time during the arbitration, the appellant, or other appellant, may withdraw its app eal, 
or other appeal, by notifying the arbitrators. This notification shall also be notified to the panel and 
third parties, at the same time as the notification to the arbitrators. If no other appeal or appeal 
remains, the notification shall be deemed to constitute a joint request by the parties to resume panel 
 
5 For greater certainty, the proposal of the arbitrators is not legally binding and it will be up to the party 
concerned to agree with the proposed substantive measures. The fact that the party concerned does not agree 
with the proposed substantive measures shall not prejudice the consideration of the case or the rights of the 
parties.  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 7 - 
  proceedings under Article  12.12 of the DSU.6 If an other appeal or appeal remains at the time an 
appeal or other appeal is withdrawn, the arbitration shall continue.  
19. The parties shall jointly noti fy these agreed procedures to the panel in DS583 and ask the 
panel to grant, where applicable, the joint requests formulated in paragraphs  4, 6, and 18.7 
 
 
 
6 If the authority of the panel has lapsed pursuant to Article  12.12 of the DSU, the arbitrators shall  issue 
an award that incorporates the findings and conclusions of the panel in their entirety.  
7 For greater certainty, should any of these requests not be granted by the panel, the parties will agree 
on alternative procedural modalities to preserve the ef fects of the relevant provisions of these agreed 
procedures.  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 8 - 
  ANNEX  A-2 
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE  25 OF THE DSU  
Adopted by the Arbitrators on 10 May 2022  
1  GENERAL  
 In these proceedings, the arbitrators are called upon to decide claims in the context of an 
arbitration under Article  25 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement 
of Disputes (DSU). The arbitrators shall follow the relevant provisions of the DSU and the Agreed 
Procedures for Arbitration under Article  25 of the DSU (WT/DS583/10) agreed by the pa rties to this 
dispute (the Agreed Procedures).  
 These Working Procedures consolidate aspects of the DSU and the Agreed Procedures 
applicable to the present arbitration, and provide additional details to facilitate these arbitration 
proceedings.1 The Workin g Procedures are in accordance, and should be read in conjunction, with 
the DSU and the Agreed Procedures.  
 The arbitrators may modify these Working Procedures as necessary, after consultation with 
the parties.  
2  LANGUAGE OF THE ARBITRATION  
 The working langua ge of the arbitration shall be English.  
3  DECISION -MAKING  
 Decisions relating to the current proceedings shall be taken by the three arbitrators selected 
for this arbitration.  
 The arbitrators shall make every effort to take their decisions by consensus. Where  a decision 
cannot be arrived at by consensus, the matter at issue shall be decided by a majority vote, without 
prejudice to the possibility that a concurring or dissenting arbitrator may express the reasons leading 
to the sense of his vote on an anonymous  basis.  
4  CHAIRPERSON  
 The arbitrators shall elect a Chairperson among themselves.  
 The responsibilities of the Chairperson shall include: (a) coordinating the overall conduct of 
the proceedings; (b) chairing any hearings and meetings related to the proceeding s; (c)  receiving 
all requests for staff support from the arbitrators on the appeal and coordinating the provision of 
such support; and (d) coordinating the drafting of the award.  
5  CONFIDENTIALITY  
 The deliberations of the arbitrators and the documents submit ted to them shall be kept 
confidential.2 Members shall treat as confidential any information that is submitted to the arbitrators 
which the submitting Member has designated as confidential.  
 
1 Paragraph  11 of the Agreed Procedures provides that "[t]he arbitrators may adapt the 
Working  Procedures for Appellate  Review and the timetable for appeals provided for therein, where justified 
under Rule  16 of the Working Procedures for Appellate  Review, after consulting the parties". The present 
Working  Procedures were adopted following consultations with the parties on 10 May 2022.  
2 The arbitrators are also bound by Article  VII of the Rules o f Conduct for the Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 9 - 
  
 Upon request, the arbitrators may adopt appropriate additional pr ocedures for the treatment 
and handling of any confidential information after consultation with the parties.  
6  WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS  
 Each party shall file written submissions in accordance with time -periods set out in the working 
schedule referred to in Section  12  below.  
 Third parties that choose to provide a written submission shall do so in accordance with the 
time-periods set out in the working schedule referred to in Section  12  below.  
 In order to enhance procedural efficiency and facilitate meeting the 90 -day time -period, the 
arbitrators request parties and third parties to keep their submissions as concise as possible and to 
focus on the main claims and outstanding differences, bearing in mind that the arbitrators will have 
read the Panel  Report and have access to the Panel Record. Theref ore, there is no need to repeat 
facts, arguments, or findings set out in either the Panel  Report or Panel Record (cross -references 
can be made and will suffice).  
 As an indicative guideline, the arbitrators suggest that the parties' submissions, excluding t he 
executive summary referred to in paragraph  15 below, should normally be limited to a maximum of 
40,000 words or 40% of the word count of the Pane l Report, whichever is the highest.  
 A written submission filed by a party or a third party shall be accompanied by or include an 
executive summary of such written submission. The maximum length of each executive summary 
shall be limited to the longer of 25 0 words or 10% of the total word count of the written submission 
itself. Executive summaries will be annexed as addenda to the arbitration award, and the content of 
such executive summaries will not be revised or edited by the arbitrators.3 These executiv e 
summaries do not serve as a substitute for the submissions of the parties and third parties in the 
arbitrators' examination of the claims.  
7  PROCESS  
 In the interests of fairness and orderly procedure in the conduct of these proceedings, where 
a procedural question arises that is not covered by the Agreed Procedures or these Working 
Procedures, the arbitrators may adopt an appropriate procedure for the purposes of that question. 
Where such a procedure is adopted, the arbitrators shall immediately notify the parties to the dispute 
and the third parties.  
 In exceptional circumstances, where strict adherence to a time -period set out in these Working 
Procedures would result in a manifest unfairness, a party to the dispute or a third party may request 
that the arbi trators modify a time -period set out in these Working Procedures for the filing of 
documents or for the hearing. Where such a request is granted by the arbitrators, any modification 
of time shall be notified to the parties to the dispute and the third part ies in a revised working 
schedule.  
8  EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS  
 Arbitrators shall not meet with or contact one party in the absence of the other party to the 
dispute. Likewise, they shall not meet with or contact one or more third parties in the absence of 
the parties to the dispute and other third parties.  
 No arbitrator may discuss any aspect of the subject matter of this arbitration with any party 
to the dispute or third party in the absence of the other arbitrators.  
9  COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION AND TURKEY' S WRITTEN SUBMISSION  
 These arbitration proceedings were initiated by Turkey on 25  April 2022 (WT/DS583/12). On 
the same day, Turkey filed a written submission, which includes an executive summary.  
 
3 The text may need to be formatted prior to circulation in order to adhere to WTO document style.  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 10 - 
  10  EUROPEAN  UNION'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION  
 Should the European  Union wish to respond to the allegations raised by Turkey  in its written 
submission, it may, in accordance with the time -periods set out in the working schedule referred to 
in Section  12  below, file with the Secretariat a written submission, accompanied by or including an 
executive summary, and serve a copy of the written submission on Turkey  and on third  parties.  
 The written submission referred to in paragraph  21 above shall: (a) be dated and signed by 
the European  Union; and (b) set out: (i)  a precise statement of the g rounds for opposing the specific 
allegations of errors in the issues of law covered in the Panel  Report and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel raised in Turkey 's written submission, and the legal arguments in support 
thereof; (ii)  an acceptance o f, or opposition to, each ground set out in Turkey 's written submission; 
(iii) a precise statement of the provisions of the covered agreements and other legal sources relied 
on; and (iv)  the nature of the decision or ruling sought.  
11  THIRD PARTIES  
 Any third party, which has notified the DSB of a substantial interest in the matter before the 
Panel pursuant to Article  10.2 of the DSU, may file a written submission containing the grounds and 
legal arguments in support of its position, accompanied by or including  an executive summary. Such 
written submission shall be filed in accordance with the time -periods set out in the working schedule 
referred to in Section  12  below.  
 A third party not filing a written submission shall, within the same time -period, notify the 
Secretariat in writing if it intends to appear at the hearing, and, if so, whether it intends to make an 
oral statement.  
 Third parties are encoura ged to file written submissions to facilitate their positions being taken 
fully into account by the arbitrators and in order that parties and other third parties have notice of 
positions to be taken at the hearing. The arbitrators suggest that third partie s that wish to make a 
submission should normally limit it to a maximum of 9,000 words.  
 Any third party that has neither filed a written submission pursuant to paragraph  23 above, 
nor notified the Secretariat pursuant to paragraph  24, may notify the Secretariat that it intends to 
appear at the hearing, and may request to make an oral statement at the hearing. Such notifications 
and requests should be notified to the Secretariat in writing at the earliest opportunity.  
12  WORKING SCHEDULE  
 The working schedule attached to these Working Procedures (Ann ex) sets forth dates for the 
filing of documents and a timetable for the arbitrators' work, including the date for a hearing. Each 
party shall file written submissions in accordance with the time -periods stipulated in the working 
schedule. Likewise, third parties that choose to provide a written submission shall do so in 
accordance with the time -periods stipulated in the working schedule.  
 The arbitrators shall issue the award within 90 days following the commencement of this 
arbitration. If necessary, in or der to issue the award within the 90 -day time -period, the arbitrators 
may propose substantive measures to the parties.4 
 On a proposal from the arbitrators, the parties may agree to extend the 90 -day time -period 
for the issuance of the award.  
13  HEARING  
 The arbitrators shall hold a hearing with the parties and third parties in accordance with the 
time-periods set out in the working schedule referred to in Section  12  above.  
 
4 A proposal by the arbitrators shall not be legally binding and it will be up to the party concerned to 
agree with the proposed substantive measures. The fact that the party concerned does not agree with the 
proposed substantive measures shall not prejudic e the consideration of the case or the rights of the parties.  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 11 - 
  
 Any third party that has filed a written submission pursuant to paragraph  23, or has notified 
the Secretariat pursuant to paragraph  24, that it intends to appear at the hearing, may appear at 
the hearing, make an oral statem ent at the hearing, and respond to questions posed by the 
arbitrators.  
 Any third party that has notified the Secretariat pursuant to paragraph  26 that it intends to 
appear at the hearing may appear at the hearing. Such third party may, at the discretion of the 
arbitrators, taking into account the requirements of due process, make an oral statement at the 
hearing, and respond to questions posed by the  arbitrators.  
 The arbitrators suggest that opening statements by parties be limited to 35 minutes each; 
opening statements by third parties be limited to 7 minutes each; and that closing statements by 
parties be limited to 10 minutes each.  
 Each party and t hird party has the right to determine the composition of its own delegation at 
the hearing. Each party shall have the responsibility for all members of its delegation and shall 
ensure that each member of its delegation acts in accordance with the DSU, the Agreed Procedures, 
and these Working Procedures, particularly with regard to the confidentiality of the proceeding and 
the submissions of the parties and third parties. Each party shall provide to the Secretariat the list 
of members of its delegation no la ter than 17:00  (Geneva time) three working days before the first 
day of the hearing.  
 A request by a party for interpretation from one WTO language to another should be made to 
the Secretariat as early as possible to allow sufficient time to ensure availabi lity of interpreters.  
14  WRITTEN RESPONSES  
 At any time during the proceedings, including, in particular, during the hearing, the arbitrators 
may address questions orally or in writing to, or request additional memoranda from, any party or 
third party, and spe cify the time -periods by which written responses or memoranda shall be 
received. The arbitrators will endeavour to address written questions to the parties, if any, in 
advance of the hearing.  
 Any such questions, responses, or memoranda shall be made availa ble to the other parties 
and third parties, who shall be given an opportunity to respond.  
15  SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS  
 No document shall be considered filed with the arbitrators unless the document is received by 
the Secretariat within the time -period set out for filing in accordance with these Working Procedures 
and the working schedule in the Annex.  
 Each party or third party shall file documents to the arbitrators by submitting them via the 
Disputes On -Line Registry Application (DORA) https://dora.wto.org  by 17:00 (Geneva time) on the 
day that the document is due. Electronic copies of documents shall be preferably provided in both 
Microsoft Word and PDF format. The electronic version uploaded into DORA shall constitute the 
official version for the purposes of submission deadlines and the record of the dispute. Upload of a 
document into DORA shall constitute electronic service on the arbitrators, the other party, and the 
third parties.  
 If any party or third party has any question s or technical difficulties relating to DORA, they 
are invited to contact the DS Registry ( DSRegistry@wto.org ). 
 If any party or third party is unable to meet the 17:00 (Geneva time) deadline because of 
technical di fficulties in uploading these documents into DORA, the party or third party concerned 
shall inform the DS  Registry ( DSRegistry@wto.org ) without delay and provide an electronic version 
of all documents to be submitt ed to the arbitrators through the electronic mail address 
arbitration25@wto.org  copied to DSRegistry@wto.org , parties, and third parties.  
 Upon authorization by the arbit rators, a party or third party may correct clerical errors in any 
of its documents (including typographical mistakes, errors of grammar, or words or numbers placed WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 12 - 
  in the wrong order). The request to correct clerical errors shall identify the specific erro rs to be 
corrected and shall be filed with the Secretariat promptly following the filing of the submission in 
question. A copy of the request shall be served upon the other parties and third parties, each of 
whom shall be given an opportunity to comment in  writing on the request. The arbitrators shall 
notify the parties and third parties of their decision.  
 As a general rule, all communications from the arbitrators to the parties and third parties will 
be via electronic mail ( arbitration25@wto.org ) and uploaded in DORA. In addition to transmitting 
the award to the parties in electronic format, the arbitrators shall provide them with a paper copy.  
Annex: Working Schedule  
 
Process  Days  Date 
Commencement of the arbitration 
process and Turkey 's written submission  0 Monday, 25  April 2022  
European  Union's written submission  18 Friday, 13  May 2022 
Third parties' written submission  21 Monday, 16  May 2022 
Hearing   Tuesday 21 June and Wednesday 22 June 
2022 (Thursday 23  June 2022 in reserve)  
Issuance of the Award  91 Monday, 25  July 2022 (given that day 90 falls 
on a Sunday)  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 13 - 
  ANNEX B  
NOTICE OF RECOURSE TO ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE DSU  
Contents  Page  
Annex  B-1 Türkiye 's notice of recourse to arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU  14 
 
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 14 - 
  ANNEX B -1 
TÜRKIYE 'S NOTICE OF RECOURSE TO ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE DSU* 
Notification of an Appeal by Turkey under Article  25 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), under Paragraph 5 of the Agreed Procedures for 
Arbitration under Article  25 of the DSU ("Arbitration Agreement"),1 and under Rule 20 of the Working 
Procedures fo r Appellate Review2 
 
Pursuant to paragraph  5 of the Arbitration Agreement, Turkey hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement 
Body of its decision to initiate an arbitration under Article  25 of the DSU to decide an appeal with 
regard to certain issues of law a nd legal interpretation covered in the Panel Report in the dispute 
Turkey – Certain Measures Concerning the Production, Importation and Marketing of Pharmaceutical 
Products . 
Pursuant to paragraph  5 of the Arbitration Agreement and Rule 20 of the Working Pr ocedures for 
Appellate  Review, Turkey simultaneously files this Notice of Appeal and its Appellant Submission 
with the European Union and the third parties in the panel proceedings and with the WTO  Secretariat. 
The Notice of Appeal includes the final repor t of the Panel in the working languages of the WTO.  
For the reasons further elaborated in its Appellant Submission to the Arbitrators, Turkey appeals and 
requests the Arbitrators to reverse the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Panel, with 
respect to the following errors of law and legal interpretation contained in the Panel Report:3  
1. The Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article  III:8(a) of the GATT  1994 
when finding that the localisation measure does not involve a "purchase" within the 
meaning of Article  III:8(a), is thus not covered by the government procurement 
derogation and is therefore subject to the national treatment obligation in Article  III:4 
of the GATT 1994 and Article  2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.4 In particular, the Panel 
erred in interpreting Article  III:8(a) as requiring that the purchase of products procured 
for governmental purposes must be made by a governmental agency5 and in 
interp reting the term "purchased" as requiring the transfer of ownership from the seller 
to the entity purchasing the product concerned.6 Because of these interpretive errors, 
the Panel erred in its application of Article  III:8(a) of the GATT  1994. First, the P anel 
erred in finding that Article  III:8(a) does not apply because there is no purchase of 
medicines included in Annex 4/A by the Turkish Social Security Institution ("SSI"). 
Second, the Panel also erred in finding that there is no purchase by the SSI beca use 
the SSI does not acquire the ownership of medicines included in Annex  4/A. 
Furthermore, even if the Panel's interpretation of the term "products purchased" was 
found to be correct ( quod non ), the Panel erred in concluding that the SSI does not 
acquire the ownership of medicines included in Annex 4/A.7 The Panel also failed to 
consider that, alternatively, retail pharmacies that purchase medicines that are 
dispensed to patients covered by the public healthcare system act on behalf of the SSI 
and to that  extent act as "governmental agencies", within the meaning of 
 
* WT/DS583/12 and WT/DS583/12/Add.1. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Agreed Procedures for 
Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, notified by the parties to the Dispute Settlement Body o n 
22 March  2022, T ürkiye's notice of recourse to arbitration attached the Final Panel Report as issued to the 
parties in English, French, and Spanish. The Panel Report is not included in this Addendum .  
1 WT/DS582/ 10. 
2 Rule 20 of the Working Procedures fo r Appellate  Review applies pursuant to paragraph  11 of the 
Arbitration Agreement.  
3 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate  Review , which apply mutatis 
mutandis  pursuant to paragraph  11 of the Arbitration Agreement , this Notice of Appeal includes an indicative 
list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice to the ability of 
Turkey to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of the arbitration proceedings.  
4 Panel Report, paras. 7.104, 7.107 and 8.1(b)(ii).  
5 Panel Report, para. 7.65. 
6 Panel Report, paras. 7.74 and 7.81.  
7 Panel Report, paras. 7.85 -7.88 and 7.90 . WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 15 - 
  Article  III:8(a).8 In light of the foregoing, Turkey requests the Arbitrators to reverse the 
relevant Panel's findings in paragraphs  7.61-7.107 and 8.1(b)(ii) of the Panel Report, 
including the  Panel's conclusion that the localisation measure is not covered by the 
government procurement derogation in Article  III:8(a) of the GATT  1994 and is 
therefore subject to the national treatment obligation in Article  III:4 of the GATT  1994 
and Article  2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
Turkey requests that consequently the Arbitrators find the Panel's conclusion that the 
localisation requirement is inconsistent with the national treatment obligation in 
Article  III:4 of the GATT  1994 to be moot and of no legal effe ct.9 If not, Turkey requests 
the Arbitrators to complete the analysis under Article  III:8(a) of the GATT  1994 and 
find that the localisation measure falls within the scope of the government procurement 
derogation provided by that provision. In that case, Turkey further requests the 
Arbitrators to reverse the Panel's findings that the localisation measure is inconsistent 
with Article  III:4 of the GATT  1994 in paragraphs  7.121 -7.127 and 8.1(b)(iii) of the 
Panel Report.  
2. The Panel erred in the interpretatio n and application of Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994 
when finding that the localisation measure is not "designed to" protect human, animal, 
or plant life or health.10 The Panel erred in defining the legal standard applicable for 
determining the design of th e measure by requiring that a measure must address a 
health risk that has "a substantial degree of probability" of materialising for the measure 
to be "designed to" protect human, animal, or plant life or health".11 The Panel also 
erred by confusing the "d esign" and "necessity" steps of the legal test under 
subparagraph  (b), and by relying on the legal tests under sub paragraphs  (a) and (j) of 
Article  XX of the GATT  1994 and Article  XIV(a) of the GATS, as interpreted by previous 
panels.12 The Panel also erred in applying Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994 by concluding 
that the evidence submitted by Turkey does not indicate that the localisation measure 
is "designed to" protect human life or health.13 In addition, the Panel failed to make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it pursuant to Article  11 of the DSU when 
addressing Turkey's claim that the localisation measure is justified under Article  XX(b) 
of the GATT  1994. The Panel wilfully disregarded part of the evidence and failed to make 
a holistic assessment of the evidence presented by Turkey.14 These errors were material 
and affected the Panel's finding that the localisation measure is not "designed to" protect 
human life or health and therefore not justified under Article  XX(b) of  the GATT  1994. 
Thus, Turkey requests the Arbitrators to reverse the Panel's findings in 
paragraphs  7.157 -7.214, 7.219 and 8.1(b)(iv) of the Panel Report and requests the 
Arbitrators to complete the legal analysis and to find that the localisation measure is 
justified under Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994. 
3. The Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article  XX(d) of the GATT  1994 
when finding that the localisation measure is not taken to secure compliance with laws 
requiring Turkey to ensure accessible, effective and financially sustainable healthcare.15 
By considering that its analysis of Turkey's defence under Article  XX(b) of the 
GATT  1994 applies mutatis mutandis to the analysis of Turkey's defence under 
Article  XX(d), the Panel applied the wrong legal standard and erroneously rejected 
Turkey's defence under Article  XX(d) of the GATT  1994. Thus, Turkey requests the 
Arbitrators to reverse t he Panel's findings under Article  XX(d) of the GATT  1994 set out 
in paragraphs  7.217 -7.219 and 8.1(b)(iv) of the Panel Report. If the Arbitrators reverse 
the Panel's findings under Article  XX(d) of the GATT  1994, Turkey requests the 
Arbitrators to complete  the analysis and find that the localisation measure is justified 
under that provision.  
_______________  
 
8 Panel Report, paras. 7.98 and 7.103.  
9 Panel Report, paras. 7.121 -7.127 and 8.1(b)(iii).  
10 Panel Report, paras.  7.211, 7.219 and 8.1(b)(iv).  
11 Panel Report, para. 7.171.  
12 Panel Report, paras.  7.167 -7.170 . 
13 See, for example, Panel Report, paras.  7.173, 7.180, 7.199, 7.207, 7.210.  
14 See, for example, Panel Report, paras.  7.186 -7.200 and 7.210.  
15 Panel Report, para.  7.218.  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 16 - 
  ANNEX C 
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES  
Contents  Page  
Annex  C-1 Executive summary of Türkiye 's written submission  17 
Annex  C-2 Executive summary of the European Union's written submission  19 
 
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 17 - 
  ANNEX C-1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF TÜRKIYE 'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION  
 The Report issued by the Panel in the case Turkey – Certain Measures Concerning the 
Production, Importation and Marketing of Pharmaceutical Products , contains several legal errors and 
errors of legal interpretation of the provisions of the GATT  1994.1 These errors have led to Panel to 
erroneous findings and conclusions with respect to the WTO -consis tency of the localisation measure 
and in particular Turkey 's claim under Article  III:8(a) of the GATT  1994 and its defences under 
Articles XX(b) and XX(d) of the GATT  1994. Turkey requests the Arbitrators to reverse the Panel 's 
findings and conclusions and to find that Turkey has not acted inconsistently with its 
WTO obligations.  
 First, Turkey submits that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article  III:8(a) of the 
GATT  1994 when finding that the localisation measure is not covered by t he government 
procurement derogation set out in that provision and is therefore subject to the national treatment 
obligation in Article  III:4 of the GATT  1994. Article  III:8(a) exempts from the national treatment 
obligation "laws, regulations or requiremen ts governing the procurement by governmental agencies 
of products purchased for governmental purposes and not with a view to commercial resale or with 
a view to use in the production of goods for commercial sale ". The Panel made several legal errors 
when i nterpreting the terms "products purchased " in the context of Article  III:8(a). First, the Panel 
erred by finding that Article  III:8(a) requires that the purchase of products procured for 
governmental purposes must be made by a governmental agency. Second, the Panel erred by 
interpreting the term "purchased " as requiring the transfer of ownership from the seller to the entity 
purchasing the product concerned.  
 Turkey further submits that the Panel erred in its application of Article  III:8(a) of the 
GATT  1994. First, the Panel erred in finding that Article  III:8(a) does not apply because there is no 
purchase of medicines included in Annex 4/A by the Turkish Social Security Institution ( "SSI"). 
Second, the Panel also erred in finding that there is no purchase b y the SSI because the SSI does 
not acquire the ownership of medicines included in Annex 4/A. Furthermore, even if the Panel 's 
interpretation of the terms "products purchased " was correct (quod non), the Panel erred in 
concluding that the SSI does not acqui re the ownership of medicines included in Annex 4/A. The 
Panel also failed to consider that, alternatively, retail pharmacies that purchase medicines that are 
dispensed to patients covered by the public healthcare system act on behalf of the SSI and to tha t 
extent act as "governmental agencies ", within the meaning of Article  III:8(a).  
 Second, Turkey submits that the Panel erred by finding that the localisation measure violates 
Article  III:4 of the GATT  1994, as a result of its erroneous finding that the gov ernment procurement 
derogation in Article  III:8(a) does not apply to the localisation measure.  
 Third, Turkey submits that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article  XX(b) 
of the GATT  1994 when finding that the localisation measure is  not "designed to " protect human, 
animal, or plant life or health. The Panel erred in defining the legal standard applicable for 
determining the design of the measure by requiring that a measure must address a health risk that 
has "a substantial degree of probability " of materialising for the measure to be "designed to " protect 
human, animal, or plant life or health. The Panel also erred by confusing the "design " and "necessity " 
steps of the legal test under Article  XX(b), and by relying on the legal tests under subparagraphs  (a) 
and (j) of Article  XX of the GATT  1994 and Article  XIV(a) of the GATS, as interpreted by previous 
panels.  
 Turkey further submits that the Panel erred in applying Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994 to the 
facts of this case by concluding that the evidence submitted by Turkey does not indicate that the 
localisation measure is "designed to " protect human life or health. In addition, the Panel failed to 
make an objective assessment of the matter before  it pursuant to Article  11 of the DSU because it 
wilfully disregarded part of the evidence and failed to make a holistic assessment of the evidence 
presented by Turkey. These errors were material and affected the Panel 's finding that the localisation 
 
1 WT/DS583/R.  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 18 - 
  measu re is not "designed to " protect human life or health and therefore not justified under 
Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994. 
 Fourth, Turkey submits that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of 
Article  XX(d) of the GATT  1994 when finding that the  localisation measure is not taken to secure 
compliance with laws requiring Turkey to ensure accessible, effective and financially sustainable 
healthcare. More specifically, by considering that its analysis of Turkey 's defence under Article  XX(b) 
of the GATT 1994 applies mutatis mutandis to the analysis of Turkey 's defence under Article  XX(d), 
the Panel applied the wrong legal standard under Article  XX(d) and erroneously rejected Turkey 's 
defence under that provision.  
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 19 - 
  ANNEX  C-2 
EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION  
 This submission sets out the response to the European Union to Turkey 's Appellant submission 
of 25 April 2022.  
 For the reasons set out in this appellee submission, the European Union requests the 
Arbitrat ors to dismiss all the grounds of appeal submitted by Turkey and to uphold all the appealed 
findings and conclusions of the Panel.  
 Contrary to the Turkey 's allegations, the Panel did not err in interpreting (sections  2.1 and  2.2) 
or applying (sections 2.3  and 2.4) Article  III:8(a) of the GATT  1994. In this regard, Turkey takes 
issue with numerous factual findings of the Panel, which is outside the scope of appellate review in 
the absence of an appeal under Article  11 of the DSU. Furthermore, the Arbitrator s cannot declare 
Panel findings under Article  III:4 of the GATT  1994 moot and of no legal effect without a completion 
of the analysis in case of reversal of the findings under Article  III:8(a). Nor can the findings under 
Article  III:4 be reversed without a previous findings, based on a completion of the analysis, that 
Article III:8(a) applies. However, should the Arbitrators find it appropriate to complete the analysis, 
they should arrive at the same conclusion as the Panel: Article  III:8(a) does not apply to the 
localisation requirement.  
 Contrary to the Turkey 's allegation s the Panel did not err in its interpretation of Article  XX(b) 
of the GATT  1994 (section  4.1) or in the subsequent application of that provision ( section  4.2). Nor 
did the Panel act inconsistently with Article  11 of the DSU ( section  4.3).  
 In the alternati ve, the European Union submits that the Arbitrators cannot "complete the 
analysis " under Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994 (section  4.4). Should the Arbitrators proceed to 
"complete the analysis ", the European Union submits in the further alternative that the  localisation 
requirement is not justified under Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994 (section  4.5).  
 Contrary to the Turkey 's allegations, the Panel did not err by relying on an incorrect legal 
standard under Article  XX(d) of the GATT  1994 (section  5.1). In the  alternative, the European  Union 
submits that the Arbitrators cannot "complete the analysis " under Article  XX(d) of the GATT  1994 
(section  5.2). Should the Arbitrators proceed to "complete the analysis ", the European Union submits 
that the localisation req uirement is not justified under Article  XX(d) of the GATT  1994 (section  5.3).  
 The present appeal arbitration is based on the substantive and procedural aspects of 
Appellate  review pursuant to Article  17 of the DSU, in order to keep its core features, incl uding 
independence and impartiality, while enhancing the procedural efficiency of appeal proceedings.  
 The European Union recalls that the Parties have agreed that the Arbitrators "only address 
those issues that are necessary for the resolution of the disp ute" and that "have been raised by the 
parties, without prejudice to their obligation to rule on jurisdictional issues "1. 
 The Parties have further agreed to request the Arbitrators to issue the award within 90 days 
following the filing of the Notice of Appeal2. To that end, the Arbitrators may take appropriate 
organizational measures to streamline the proceedings3. If necessary in order to issue the award 
within the 90 day time -period, the arbitrators may also propose substantive measures to the partie s, 
such as an exclusion of claims based pursuant to Article  11 of the DSU4.  
 
1 Agreed Arbitration Procedures, para. 10. 
2 Agreed Arbitration Procedures, para. 12. 
3 Ibid. 
4 Agreed Arbitration Procedures, para.  13. WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 20 - 
  
 The European Union would invite the Arbitrators to consider whether any such organizational 
or substantive measures are appropriate in view of the submissions of the parties, inc luding with 
regard to the claims submitted by Turkey pursuant to Article  11 of the DSU.  
_______________  WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 21 - 
  ANNEX D  
ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES  
Contents  Page  
Annex  D-1 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's third party's written 
submission  22 
Annex  D-2 Executive summary of Switzerland's third party's written submission  23 
 
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 22 - 
  ANNEX  D-1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION'S THIRD PARTY'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION  
1. Russia concurs with Turkey that the Panel made certain errors in interpretation of 
Article  III:8(a) of the GATT  1994. In particular Russia disagrees that "in the context of the phrase 
'procurement by governmental agencies of products purchased for governmental purposes' in 
Article  III:8(a), a product is 'purchased' by a government if the government acquires ownership of  
that product through some kind of payment."  
2. The text does not use the noun "purchase", but participle "purchased". The phrase "products 
purchased" is not something that is derogated, but the "procurement by governmental agencies". 
The derogation is not l imited to instances where products are "ultimately used or consumed" as such 
limitation does not exist. The context, including the wording of Articles XVII:2 and XVII:1 of the 
GATT  1994, supports such understanding. The suggested interpretation also dimini shes the words 
"for the governmental purposes", meaning that Article  III:8(a) of the GATT  1994 "refers to what is 
consumed by government or what is provided by government to recipients in the discharge of its 
public functions". In addition, the text of Article XIII of the GATS using similar derogation with 
respect to services brings doubt to the suggested interpretation.  
3. Russia also suggests to take great caution in drawing any analogies to the analysis of panels 
and Appellate  Body presented in disputes India – Solar Cells  or to Canada  – Renewable energy , as 
the main issue in those disputes was, whether the "product purchased" and the "product 
discriminated" were the same, but not what the meaning of "product purchased" is.  
 WT/DS583/ARB 25/Add.1  
 
- 23 - 
  ANNEX  D-2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SWITZERLAND'S THIRD PARTY'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION  
1. Switzerland welcomes the opportunity to present its views as a third participant in these 
appeal arbitration proceedings . Switzerland welcome s the fact that the parties to this dispute have 
agreed on appeal arbitration procedures under Article  25 of the DSU, thus preserving a 
two-step dispute settlement process in the present case, while the Appellate  Body is unable to hear 
appeals.  
2. As it is the first time that arbitration proceedings under Article  25 of the DSU take place to 
decide an appeal from a panel report, Switzerland would  firstly like to offer some views on the 
conduct of such proceedings. Switzerland encourages the Arbitrators to consider appropriate 
organizational measures allowing them to issue their award within 90 days. Switzerland also notes 
that the Arbitrators coul d propose to the parties to exclude Turkey 's claim that the Panel acted 
inconsistently with Article  11 of the DSU from their review, if Turkey agrees, as provided for in 
paragraph  13 of the Agreed Procedures. Switzerland further encourages the appeal Arbit rators to 
apply in their review an appropriate degree of deference to the Panel 's findings, in particular when 
reviewing Turkey 's claims that the Panel has erred in the application of certain legal requirements 
or provisions to the facts of the case. Secon d, Switzerland provides comments on the assessment 
of the design requirement under Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994 when a measure has multiple 
objectives. In this regard, Switzerland submits that, in case a measure pursues multiple objectives, 
and especiall y if one of the objectives concerned is an industrial policy objective, as it is in the 
present case, the design test may be a demanding task for a panel to perform. Where, as in the 
present case,  there are indicia that the measure pursues an industrial po licy objective, and where 
the responding party acknowledges that the measure may be seen as pursuing such objective, a 
panel may not admit lightly that the measure is designed to protect human life or health under 
Article  XX(b) of the GATT  1994. Finally, S witzerland comments on Turkey 's request for completion 
of the analysis by the Arbitrators, highlighting certain criteria that it considers appropriate for the 
arbitrators to examine in their decision whether or not to complete the analysis. In addition to factual 
findings and undisputed facts on the Panel record, other factors that may be considered by the 
Arbitrators in their decision whether or not to complete the analysis include the complexity of the 
issues at hand, whether there was a full exploration of the issues before the Panel, and 
considerations for parties ' due process rights.  
__________